Yes, and it’s worse than that. As @amywestervelt reports in the Drilled podcast, the fossil fuel industries’ PR invention of the “advertisement op ed” in esteemed outlets like the NYT, changed public opinion AND— as they gleefully bragged — how JOURNALISTS COVER CLIMATE. @jswatzhttps://twitter.com/DoctorVive/status/1187402451344904192 …
-
Show this thread
-
@amywestervelt@DoctorVive@jswatz Amy, can you remind me which episode this was were you covered the “advertisement op ed” and its profound effect on public opinion and coverage of climate?1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
Thanks! This episode, “Weaponizing false equivalence,” reminds me of
@jayrosen_nyu’s criticism of “he said / she said” journalism. He makes many of the same points you did.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emahlee @amywestervelt and
Amy's podcast is great, but should we be surprised that people who do PR for a living tried to spin their own bosses with claims that they had changed the work of journalists at The NYT and WaPo with ads? Would the NYT have run this on A1, if true? https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html …pic.twitter.com/42YWoXU1fa
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Or, if the Times was afraid of angering big advertisers how about this one, which talks directly about Exxon funding climate denial? https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html …pic.twitter.com/ihuzySuaa2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jswatz @amywestervelt and
Emily Cunningham Retweeted Alex Steffen
The point I was trying to make is not that the Times was/is afraid of angering big advertisers. It is much more insidious than that. Much more about framing. See this thread by
@AlexSteffen
https://twitter.com/alexsteffen/status/1018861315237076992?s=21 …Emily Cunningham added,
Alex SteffenVerified account @AlexSteffenIt is very difficult for most members of the American press/academia/punditry to accept the idea that their core thinking on climate change and the planetary crisis has been bounded and shaped by Carbon Lobby propaganda... much less grapple with the implications of that fact. 1/Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Emily Cunningham Retweeted Alex Steffen
I think it is unlikely conversations like this happened, “We’re killing the piece. Exxon just dropped $1M in advertising.” Instead, the very framing by journalists of how we understand climate change and solutions is a product of the Carbon Lobby. See:https://twitter.com/alexsteffen/status/1018861616362917888?s=21 …
Emily Cunningham added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
John, do you think the dominant framing in the press (that Alex lays out) of climate from the 1990s until even now (tho that’s changing) has been appropriate? If not, why? My answer: No, it hasn’t. Why? Massive amounts of money spent on disinformation including advertorials.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Do I think it was only the advertorials that caused this? No. These were part of a much larger disinformation campaign that the press has been complicit in. Has there also been stellar reporting on the climate change? Absolutely. Both can be simultaneously true.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.